Schools plan may be short by $1 billion

Saturday

Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 AMFeb 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Gov. Ted Strickland's promise to fund an adequate education for all students could fall short by up to a billion dollars because he is grossly underestimating the amount needed to pay teachers, some experts say.

Gov. Ted Strickland's promise to fund an adequate education for all students could fall short by up to a billion dollars because he is grossly underestimating the amount needed to pay teachers, some experts say.

Strickland's new "evidence-based" school-funding formula calculates how many teachers each district needs but then figures that the average Ohio teacher earns $45,094.

However, some state lawmakers and just about everyone in the education community -- teachers, superintendents and treasurers -- say the number is actually $54,210, or 20 percent higher.

Ohio has the equivalent of 109,000 full-time teachers. So if the state continued to fund roughly that same number, every $1,000 increase in pay over Strickland's average would cost about $100 million. If those questioning Strickland's number are correct, he would fall $993 million short of the amount necessary to pay for the number of teachers he says is necessary.

Even if more conservative methods to calculate average pay are used, Strickland's plan still would fall hundreds of millions of dollars short.

Where is the disagreement on what seemingly should be a simple matter of arithmetic?

Education groups want to take all teacher salaries at traditional public schools and average them. Strickland's number comes out far lower because he takes the average salary per district, not per teacher, and then also factors in hundreds of charter schools -- even though his plan funds charter schools separately.

State data from last school year listed 199 districts with average teacher salaries below $35,000, and all but two of them were charter schools. Seven districts' averages were less than $20,000.

"We can't afford union-wage teachers, so we pay less," said Ron Adler, president of the Ohio Coalition for Quality Education, a charter-school advocacy group.

The salary figure is a key component in determining how much a district gets under the new funding formula.

"We believe it's an accurate reflection of teacher salaries across the state," said Amanda Wurst, spokeswoman for Strickland.

But few outside the administration agree, instead pointing to the $54,210 figure.

"It more accurately reflects what teachers are making right now," said Darold Johnson, a lobbyist for the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

Kirk Hamilton, deputy director of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, agrees, adding that his group wants "an average teacher salary that is transparent and reflective of the true average teacher salary in the state."

What perplexes education advocates most about the governor's number is that while he factors charter schools into his salary calculation, that $45,094 figure is plugged into a formula that funds only traditional public schools.

"If you're going to have two formulas, then why are you cross-breeding an average salary?" said David Varda, executive director of the Ohio Association of School Business Officials.

Wurst said Strickland is open to talking about different salaries. Asked how that could affect his overall budget, she said, "The discussion is just beginning."

Some say that the salary figure is only part of the problem.

"I'm not as hung up on what the average teacher salary is as much as I am in making sure the formula recognizes poverty," Varda said.

Regardless of what numbers are plugged in, the total funding figure spit out on the other end isn't working for many poor, rural districts, especially those that don't meet the ideal building sizes built into the formula, Varda said.

Based on property values per pupil, 24 of the state's 50 poorest districts get funding cuts under Strickland's plan. "It is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed," Varda said.

Some ideas under discussion for helping poor districts:

• A faster phase-in of some funding elements of Strickland's plan, such as textbook and technology money. Meanwhile, instead of fixing phantom revenue all at once, something that mainly would help wealthier districts, phase in changes that would remove a flaw in the funding formula that overstates property values.

• A reduction in the maximum annual funding increases for districts. The formula caps it at 15 percent in 2010, and 16 percent in 2011. A Dispatch analysis found that reducing the cap to 8 percent per year could free up about $300 million over two years.

• A guarantee that certain poor, rural districts get at least some funding increase.

jsiegel@dispatch.com

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.